Illegal downloading is not theft - its something new

[SteveDave]

You are breaking copyright laws no matter how you put it. Turn yourself in and see if your bullshit argument holds up in court. If it so fantastic then you should have no problem getting off. Torrents do not have authorization to distribute and you can not compare them to libraries because of the fact that libraries have been authorized to distribute and you don't return the things you steal through torrents. Again, you are a thief and a bain on the economy and I have no respect for you as I have no respect for someone who shoplifts.

You know, I'm picturing you right now. Picturing you. You live in Boston. And you're on a wharf right now. Well, not ~right now~... more like, two hundred and thirty-five years ago. I see you waving your arms over your head, and you've got this high squeaky voice going "No! No! Don't throw that tea into the harbor! That's so bad and wrong and stuff! You're a bane on our colonial economy. I really like the word bane! Like way too much!"

See, Steve, we had this problem nationally with bumping up against laws that weren't right. So, we understood that law is not always correct. We also believed law should be made more correct. Should be pushed in that direction. That was meant to be a part and parcel of participatory democracy. Law has to be tested, it has to be questioned, and if it fails it has to be fought. And that's... well... it's a lot of fun throwing tea out.

You are not revolutionary. You steal from the owners of the intellectual property just like the British stole from the colonials through heavy taxation. The first copyright laws were enacted in 1787 and have been tested throughout our history. Again use you bullshit argument in court and see if it stands. You say the law is unjust and should be brought down, well see if the judicial system agrees.

You are a fucking bane on society, so go to jail or get a job. Capatilism is great and it is people like you that impead its progress and hurt prosperity.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

Well apparently 1992 was the year a law was passed that allowed artists fair payment for their lending rights. That's what changed. I don't see this as infringing on my freedom and you're not going to change my mind on this, just I'm not going to change yours.

Incidentally, they don't let libraries break the law at all. There are provisions under the law to accommodate libraries and those provisions are very specific.

 

[JMeganSnow]

A definition of theft : The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same.

This is a *spectacularly* poor definition of theft, btw, especially since only GRAND theft is FELONIOUS. A much better, simpler, and more comprehensive definition would be:

Obtaining property without the consent of the owner.

Simple. It doesn't matter whether the act is felonious. It doesn't matter whether it's "personal" property or property owned by a group of people. It doesn't matter what you intend to use it for or whether you're trying to "deprive" the original owner of the property.

This thread = pointless.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

Well apparently 1992 was the year a law was passed that allowed artists fair payment for their lending rights. That's what changed. I don't see this as infringing on my freedom and you're not going to change my mind on this, just I'm not going to change yours.

Incidentally, they don't let libraries break the law at all. There are provisions under the law to accommodate libraries and those provisions are very specific.

I see, so that's what changed. Nothing about the ideas those generations of people had before 1992 changed. Your answer is a new law got passed, the end. Throw up our hands, law's always right. Ok, that's the sort of thoughtless attitude I've gotten from this thread. I was just expecting a little more depth from you.

And incidentally... yes, I'm quite aware. When I say they are "allowed" to break the law, of course what I mean is that their are provisions giving them exemptions. Exemptions a torrent user doesn't get. And of course I was asking what made libraries different, and the answer I'm getting is "because." Ok.

This is getting a little depressing.

Ragdrazi, you jump to conclusions so fast that I'm beginning to think you're part frog. When have I said that the law is always right? Nowhere. However in this case, I think the law was right. How do authors make a living? The answer is, by selling books. If people aren't buying books because they are borrowing them from the library, I think it's fair that the author should receive some payment for that.

Libraries differ from torrents, wait, let's be more specific here. Libraries differ from illegal torrents in intent. A library is a place where you can borrow a book, read it and then give it back. A torrent is a place where you can take something that you haven't paid for and never give it back, ever. The only similarity is that no money has changed hands in either case.

Can you see the difference, or am I wasting my breath?

 

[Logan Westbrook]

Ragdrazi, you're an idealist, and that is an admirable trait, but I don't agree with your ideals. Libraries are not actually free, the cost is merely obfuscated in taxes. The only way your ideal can stand up is that if every book and every library had been donated by well-meaning philanthropists and every librarian worked for free. We pay for libraries and there is no way to dispute that.

Yes, a library will let you renew a book over and over, but you have to actually renew it. It again comes back to intent, a library book is something you borrow, a file from a torrent is something you take.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

It again comes back to intent, a library book is something you borrow, a file from a torrent is something you take.

Ah ah ah...

Something that you copy. Nobody is taking anything, the file still remains at its initial location.

... and the circle continues.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

It again comes back to intent, a library book is something you borrow, a file from a torrent is something you take.

Ah ah ah...

Something that you copy. Nobody is taking anything, the file still remains at its initial location.

... and the circle continues.

On the contrary. You take retail sales from stores and in turn from developers and publishers.

 

[Hevoo]

You are taking the registered rights of a game and using or redistributing that game illegally, That is deemed stealing by the United State congress.

Its not about the Data you idiot, its about the copy rights, and if you take and redistribute without contract from the copy right holders, that is STEALING.

Granted Copy Right laws are not the same in all nations sadly, but here in America taking Copy Righted data illegally is stealing.

The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same.

You are removing the personal property(the copy rights of the game), with intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same.(if you are downloading unintentionally, I would like to see that, I don't think you can do that, whole point of torrents is to steal data. Not to mention ignorance is not above the law.)

 

[rabidmidget]

you say that the company doesn't lose anything physically so it isn't stealing? How about the fact that by downloading songs, movies or games makes the company loses the money that they would have made if it was bought legally. Also don't say that the company doesn't need the money because since we are currently in a recession they need all that money and many companies have been forced to lay off employees, EA had to fire 6% of its employees because of losses.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

I think renewing a book matters a lot. It is basically you saying to the library, "is it ok if I hang on to this for a little bit longer?" Essentially, it is courteous.

Here's the thing though, I agree with you regarding the cost benefits and efficiency of torrents, provided the works are public domain. I'd love to download the complete works of Shakespeare, and a torrent seems the idea way of doing that. But crucially, no one would lose out there. I think the reason we are having this discussion is that we essentially have different ideas about what is fair.

 

[rabidmidget]

btw the reason why libraries are different to torrents is because everyone should have a right to literature as literacy is important in the development of a countries economy

 

[DamienHell]

What I've learned from these huge arguements: In America so long as you don't download and upload $1000 worth of stuff within six months your fine. Canada is safe, parts of Europe are safe. I'm not sure about details in Europe. In my opinion its not theft, it costs $0 to replace a pirated copy of a product, and unless the original is stolen they make money off that copy, theres no money lost. Its not theft.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

It again comes back to intent, a library book is something you borrow, a file from a torrent is something you take.

Ah ah ah...

Something that you copy. Nobody is taking anything, the file still remains at its initial location.

... and the circle continues.

On the contrary. You take retail sales from stores and in turn from developers and publishers.

Literally, no. You are not literally taking a real world sale, and transfering the funds from the store and developer. Have you seen the music industries estimates of money lost due to music piracy? Their figures are in the billions with a bloated cost of $1 per song. In reality though, that theoretical money never existed in the real world economy. Just because someone steals $1,000 in software doesn't actually mean that they ever had $1,000. So the estimated loss is only theoretical and actually bares no real world relevance.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

It again comes back to intent, a library book is something you borrow, a file from a torrent is something you take.

Ah ah ah...

Something that you copy. Nobody is taking anything, the file still remains at its initial location.

... and the circle continues.

On the contrary. You take retail sales from stores and in turn from developers and publishers.

Literally, no. You are not literally taking a real world sale, and transfering the funds from the store and developer. Have you seen the music industries estimates of money lost due to music piracy? Their figures are in the billions with a bloated cost of $1 per song. In reality though, that theoretical money never existed in the real world economy. Just because someone steals $1,000 in software doesn't actually mean that they ever had $1,000. So the estimated loss is only theoretical and actually bares no real world relevance.

If someone were to steal $1000 of software, that is $1000 of software they will not buy, that is $1000 dollars that a retailer will not get, and a developer will not get some portion of.

Imagine if a game was pirated 100%. If we follow your argument, aside from the cost of development, no one loses any money, because that money never existed in the real world economy. But that isn't true is it? If nothing gets sold, no one makes any money.

 

[Molikroth]

Here's the thing though, I agree with you regarding the cost benefits and efficiency of torrents, provided the works are public domain. I'd love to download the complete works of Shakespeare, and a torrent seems the idea way of doing that. But crucially, no one would lose out there. I think the reason we are having this discussion is that we essentially have different ideas about what is fair.

What about the many, many permutations of "Complete Works of Shakespeare" doorstops? Or even the works published individually?

With public domain material there'd still be the issue that someone is not getting money they could potentially gain if not for torrents. That is to say, a person might be interested in Shakespeare, but not enough to buy a copy of his works or visit a library.